Top

Published in:

01-04-2015 | Gynecologic Oncology

Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography

Authors: Michael Golatta, Christina Baggs, Mirjam Schweitzer-Martin, Christoph Domschke, Sarah Schott, Aba Harcos, Alexander Scharf, Hans Junkermann, Geraldine Rauch, Joachim Rom, Christof Sohn, Joerg Heil

Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics | Issue 4/2015

Abstract

Purpose

Automated three-dimensional (3D) breast ultrasound (US) systems are meant to overcome the shortcomings of hand-held ultrasound (HHUS). The aim of this study is to analyze and compare clinical performance of an automated 3D-US system by comparing it with HHUS, mammography and the clinical gold standard (defined as the combination of HHUS, mammography and—if indicated—histology).

Methods

Nine hundred and eighty three patients (=1,966 breasts) were enrolled in this monocentric, explorative and prospective cohort study. All examinations were analyzed blinded to the patients´ history and to the results of the routine imaging. The agreement of automated 3D-US with HHUS, mammography and the gold standard was assessed with kappa statistics. Sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive value were calculated to assess the test performance.

Results

Blinded to the results of the gold standard the agreement between automated 3D-US and HHUS or mammography was fair, given by a Kappa coefficient of 0.31 (95 % CI [0.26;0.36], p < 0.0001) and 0.25 (95 % CI [0.2;0.3], p < 0.0001), respectively. Our results showed a high negative predictive value (NPV) of 98 %, a high specificity of 85 % and a sensitivity of 74 % based on the cases with US-guided biopsy. Including the cases where the lesion was seen in a second-look automated 3D-US the sensitivity improved to 84 % (NPV = 99 %, specificity = 85 %).

Conclusion

The results of this study let us suggest, that automated 3D-US might be a helpful new tool in breast imaging, especially in screening.

Wild JJ, Neal D (1951) Use of high-frequency ultrasonic waves for detecting changes of texture in living tissues. Lancet 1(6656):655–657CrossRefPubMed

Kreienberg R (2012) Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie der AWMF, Deutschen Krebsgesellschaft e.V. und Deutschen Krebshilfe e.V. http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/032-045OL.html

Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D, Evans P, Monsees B, Monticciolo D, Brenner RJ, Bassett L, Berg W, Feig S, Hendrick E, Mendelson E, D’Orsi C, Sickles E, Burhenne LW (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the society of breast imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7(1):18–27. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2009.09.022 CrossRefPubMed

Newell MS, Birdwell RL, D’Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Mahoney MC, Bailey L, Berg WA, Harvey JA, Herman CR, Kaplan SS, Liberman L, Mendelson EB, Parikh JR, Rabinovitch R, Rosen EL, Sutherland ML (2010) ACR appropriateness criteria(R) on nonpalpable mammographic findings (excluding calcifications). J Am Coll Radiol 7(12):920–930. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2010.07.006 CrossRefPubMed

Perry N, Broeders M, de Wolf C, Tornberg S, Holland R, von Karsa L (2008) European guidelines for quality assurance in breast cancer screening and diagnosis. Fourth edition–summary document. Ann Oncol 19(4):614–622. doi:10.1093/annonc/mdm481 CrossRefPubMed

Albert US, Altland H, Duda V, Engel J, Geraedts M, Heywang-Kobrunner S, Holzel D, Kalbheim E, Koller M, Konig K, Kreienberg R, Kuhn T, Lebeau A, Nass-Griegoleit I, Schlake W, Schmutzler R, Schreer I, Schulte H, Schulz-Wendtland R, Wagner U, Kopp I (2009) 2008 Update of the guideline: early detection of breast cancer in Germany. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 135(3):339–354. doi:10.1007/s00432-008-0450-y CrossRefPubMed

Bae MS, Moon WK, Chang JM, Koo HR, Kim WH, Cho N, Yi A, Yun BL, Lee SH, Kim MY, Ryu EB, Seo M (2014) Breast cancer detected with screening US: reasons for nondetection at mammography. Radiology 270(2):369–377. doi:10.1148/radiol.13130724 CrossRefPubMed

Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE (1999) Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 213(2):413–422CrossRefPubMed

Corsetti V, Ferrari A, Ghirardi M, Bergonzini R, Bellarosa S, Angelini O, Bani C, Ciatto S (2006) Role of ultrasonography in detecting mammographically occult breast carcinoma in women with dense breasts. Radiol Med 111(3):440–448. doi:10.1007/s11547-006-0040-5 CrossRefPubMed

10.

Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 181(1):177–182CrossRefPubMed

11.

Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, Berliere M, Berg BV, D’Hoore W, Maldague B (2003) Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(6):1675–1679CrossRefPubMed

12.

Dick DE, Elliott RD, Metz RL, Rojohn DS (1979) A new automated, high resolution ultrasound breast scanner. Ultrason Imaging 1(4):368–377CrossRefPubMed

13.

Egan RL, Egan KL (1984) Detection of breast carcinoma: comparison of automated water-path whole-breast sonography, mammography, and physical examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 143(3):493–497CrossRefPubMed

14.

Egan RL, Egan KL (1984) Automated water-path full-breast sonography: correlation with histology of 176 solid lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 143(3):499–507CrossRefPubMed

15.

Hollenhorst M, Hansen C, Huttebrauker N, Schasse A, Heuser L, Ermert H, Schulte-Altedorneburg G (2010) Ultrasound computed tomography in breast imaging: first clinical results of a custom-made scanner. Ultraschall Med 31(6):604–609. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1245506 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Jackson VP, Kelly-Fry E, Rothschild PA, Holden RW, Clark SA (1986) Automated breast sonography using a 7.5-MHz PVDF transducer: preliminary clinical evaluation. Work in progress. Radiology 159(3):679–684CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kimme-Smith C, Bassett LW, Gold RH (1988) High frequency breast ultrasound. Hand-held versus automated units; examination for palpable mass versus screening. J Ultrasound Med 7(2):77–81PubMed

18.

Maturo VG, Zusmer NR, Gilson AJ, Smoak WM, Janowitz WR, Bear BE, Goddard J, Dick DE (1980) Ultrasound of the whole breast utilizing a dedicated automated breast scanner. Radiology 137(2):457–463CrossRefPubMed

19.

Richter K, Heywang-Kobrunner SH, Winzer KJ, Schmitt KJ, Prihoda H, Frohberg HD, Guski H, Gregor P, Blohmer JU, Fobbe F, Doinghaus K, Lohr G, Hamm B (1997) Detection of malignant and benign breast lesions with an automated US system: results in 120 cases. Radiology 205(3):823–830CrossRefPubMed

20.

Shipley JA, Duck FA, Goddard DA, Hillman MR, Halliwell M, Jones MG, Thomas BT (2005) Automated quantitative volumetric breast ultrasound data-acquisition system. Ultrasound Med Biol 31(7):905–917. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2005.03.007 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Sinha SP, Goodsitt MM, Roubidoux MA, Booi RC, LeCarpentier GL, Lashbrook CR, Thomenius KE, Chalek CL, Carson PL (2007) Automated ultrasound scanning on a dual-modality breast imaging system: coverage and motion issues and solutions. J Ultrasound Med 26(5):645–655PubMed

22.

Vilaro MM, Kurtz AB, Needleman L, Fleischer AC, Mitchell DG, Rosenberg A, Miller C, Rifkin MD, Pennell R, Baltarowich O et al (1989) Hand-held and automated sonomammography. Clinical role relative to X-ray mammography. J Ultrasound Med 8(2):95–100PubMed

23.

Giuliano V, Giuliano C (2012) Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging. doi:10.1016/j.clinimag.2012.09.018

24.

Golatta M, Franz D, Harcos A, Junkermann H, Rauch G, Scharf A, Schuetz F, Sohn C, Heil J (2013) Interobserver reliability of automated breast volume scanner (ABVS) interpretation and agreement of ABVS findings with hand held breast ultrasound (HHUS), mammography and pathology results. Eur J Radiol 82(8):e332–e336. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.03.005 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Kelly KM, Richwald GA (2011) Automated whole-breast ultrasound: advancing the performance of breast cancer screening. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 32(4):273–280. doi:10.1053/j.sult.2011.02.004 CrossRefPubMed

26.

Lin X, Wang J, Han F, Fu J, Li A (2012) Analysis of eighty-one cases with breast lesions using automated breast volume scanner and comparison with handheld ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 81(5):873–878. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.02.038 CrossRefPubMed

27.

Padilla F, Roubidoux MA, Paramagul C, Sinha SP, Goodsitt MM, Le Carpentier GL, Chan HP, Hadjiiski LM, Fowlkes JB, Joe AD, Klein KA, Nees AV, Noroozian M, Patterson SK, Pinsky RW, Hooi FM, Carson PL (2013) Breast mass characterization using 3-dimensional automated ultrasound as an adjunct to digital breast tomosynthesis: a pilot study. J Ultrasound Med 32(1):93–104PubMedCentralPubMed

28.

Prosch H, Halbwachs C, Strobl C, Reisner LM, Hondl M, Weber M, Mostbeck GH (2011) Automated breast ultrasound vs. handheld ultrasound: BI-RADS classification, duration of the examination and patient comfort. Ultraschall Med 32(5):504–510. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1273414 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Shin HJ, Kim HH, Cha JH, Park JH, Lee KE, Kim JH (2011) Automated ultrasound of the breast for diagnosis: interobserver agreement on lesion detection and characterization. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(3):747–754. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.5841 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Wang ZL, Xw JH, Li JL, Huang Y, Tang J (2012) Comparison of automated breast volume scanning to hand-held ultrasound and mammography. Radiol Med 117(8):1287–1293. doi:10.1007/s11547-012-0836-4 CrossRefPubMed

31.

Wenkel E, Heckmann M, Heinrich M, Schwab SA, Uder M, Schulz-Wendtland R, Bautz WA, Janka R (2008) Automated breast ultrasound: lesion detection and BI-RADS classification -a pilot study. Roefo 180(9):804–808. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1027563 CrossRef

32.

Wojcinski S, Farrokh A, Hille U, Wiskirchen J, Gyapong S, Soliman AA, Degenhardt F, Hillemanns P (2011) The automated breast volume scanner (ABVS): initial experiences in lesion detection compared with conventional handheld B-mode ultrasound: a pilot study of 50 cases. Int J Womens Health 3:337–346. doi:10.2147/IJWH.S23918 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMed

33.

Zhang Q, Hu B, Li WB (2012) Detection of breast lesions using an automated breast volume scanner system. J Int Med Res 40(1):300–306CrossRefPubMed

34.

Mendelson E, Baum J, Berg W (2003) Breast imaging reporting and data system: ACR BI-RADS—breast imaging atlas. In: BI-RADS: Ultrasound Reston, American College of Radiology, VA

35.

Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, Park JS, Kim SJ (2011) Radiologists’ performance in the detection of benign and malignant masses with 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). Eur J Radiol 78(1):99–103. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.01.074 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Landis J, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefPubMed

37.

Kotsianos-Hermle D, Hiltawsky KM, Wirth S, Fischer T, Friese K, Reiser M (2009) Analysis of 107 breast lesions with automated 3D ultrasound and comparison with mammography and manual ultrasound. Eur J Radiol 71(1):109–115. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.04.001 CrossRefPubMed

Title: Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography
Authors: Michael Golatta
Christina Baggs
Mirjam Schweitzer-Martin
Christoph Domschke
Sarah Schott
Aba Harcos
Alexander Scharf
Hans Junkermann
Geraldine Rauch
Joachim Rom
Christof Sohn
Joerg Heil
Publication date: 01-04-2015
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics / Issue 4/2015
Print ISSN: 0932-0067
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0711
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-014-3509-9

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Evaluation of an automated breast 3D-ultrasound system by comparing it with hand-held ultrasound (HHUS) and mammography

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Antihypertensive therapy in preeclampsia is not modulated by VEGF polymorphisms

Prediction of preterm delivery using levels of VEGF and leptin in amniotic fluid from the second trimester: prediction rules

Clinical relevance of objectifying colposcopy

The effect of inherited thrombophilia on second trimester combined aneuploidy screening test markers

Second trimester amniotic fluid retinol in patients developing preeclampsia

Minimally invasive surgery for endometrial cancer: a comprehensive review